Is anyone interested in a discussion of this book? This is the book that got Jimmy Moore started on NK which then started some of us down that path. It introduced the concept of using a meter to test for blood ketones and that their may be an ideal "zone" for staying in ketosis long-term.

At first when I read it I thought that it was just about athletes and didn't apply to me as much. But I've had a chance to re-read it and there is a lot of good information there for everyone working towards NK.

What are your favorite tidbits from the book?

What do you think about the contradictions that exist between this book and the other books written by the authors? Contradictions with the interviews and lectures?

If you haven't read it--get yourself a copy and join in the discussion!

I loved this book and my copy is marked and dog eared through out! It was written for p.c.p. in an attempt to help them prescribe this way of eating for some of their patients. When I mentioned it to my doctor, he wrote down the name and suggested that he was going to read it.......

I think it is an important book for all low carbers.

__________________Cathy
Original start - Feb. 2000 180/125

"The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body." Dr. P. Attia

I read the book and gave it to my personal trainer yesterday (along with the orig. book) and she's going to take a look at it. She does lowcarb and is a brilliant person, so will be interesting to hear her thoughts.

OOps, I made a mistake and thought we were talking the earlier book, 'living'. I wonder if there is any benefit to ready the 'performance' for someone like myself, who is not into fitness training?

I was coming back to post that I'd made the same mistake! I am on chapter six of the original, living, book right now. I do own the performance book - bought it mostly for my hubby though as I am a "light to moderate" type of exerciser and have never in my life worried about athletic performance. But I would love to hear if someone like me could benefit from reading it. I'll plan to do so once I finish the first book.

I am a former 320 lb couch potato now Ironman triathlete. I read the book two weeks ago and made the jump the next day. I am one week out from running the Dallas marathon and I had a great run yesterday and another great run today. I think my adaptation is in full swing. By contrast, my runs last weekend SUCKED and I am eating less carbs this week than last (just counting everything). I was looking for a way to knock off my last 30 lbs and I hope this is it. I am certainly much less preoccupied with food today than over the past year.

It was looking for more information that led me to this site. I will keep you all posted, but I am feeling great. There is something substantially correct in Phinney's hypothesis I think.

I think it would be great to discuss both books on this thread. I'm going to re-read the Living book so I can add more to the discussion. I also plan on re-listening to Dr. Phinney's long-term stalls podcast with Jimmy Moore this afternoon.

For those reading the Living book, are there particular sections that you found helpful? If you've read both are there any contradictions?

I am not an athlete, but I do workout regularly. I'm not sure what category that puts me in. I found the Performance book very worthwhile and it didn't just apply to athletes.

I fiddle around with NK, but recently found out I am allergic to dairy. My NK diet was pretty heavy on cream, crem cheese, etc so that will take some adjustment.

I picked up the book on Amazon when the Kindle version was in the super cheap section. I think I paid $1.75 for it right before I went on vacation last summer. I hadn't heard of their other book. I was ready to make the switch right then and there, but we had packed the RV with the wrong foods and I was stuck with them for a week.

I am normally a distance runner, but have been sidelined for a year and a half with achilles problems. I am having surgery in a few weeks and hope to get back to it after that.

The book is heavy on the science, but that was good to read after being inundated for so long about carb loading. I ate low carb for years, but I would target carbs around my running. A bowl of oatmeal can only last so long on a 15 mile run though. My stomach can't handle much food while running, so it was always a challenge. I have vast fat stores I would love to tap into (especially since I quit running).

It has been a while since I read the book, but I plan to go through it again and plan some menus while I am laid up from surgery.

Is anyone else a bit confused about the difference in protein recommendations between the books and Dr. Phinney's podcast?

In the Living book they recommend 1.5-2g protein per kg of reference body weight. Strangely enough reference weight isn't the same thing as goal weight and I can't find a definition or chart of it in the book. And they also say that "No one has ever shown that more that 1.5gram/kg improves human protein synthesis...That said, however, generations of power athletes have made the empiric observation that they train and compete better on proportionally higher protein intakes (e.g., 1.5 to 2.5 grams per kg)."

But then in the Performance book they spell out multiple times that the range for protein should be .6 to 1 x lean body mass. Wouldn't the ranges for athletes be higher than the general public that the Living book is geared towards?

Then in Dr. Phinney's podcast with Jimmy Moore he continues to reference 1.5-2grams/kg from the Living book. He also refers to a protein chart that is in the NANY book which has ranges by height that don't seem to correspond (Jimmy has copied this is the notes for the podcast in case anyone is interested).

Is anyone else a bit confused about the difference in protein recommendations between the books and Dr. Phinney's podcast?

In the Living book they recommend 1.5-2g protein per kg of reference body weight. Strangely enough reference weight isn't the same thing as goal weight and I can't find a definition or chart of it in the book. And they also say that "No one has ever shown that more that 1.5gram/kg improves human protein synthesis...That said, however, generations of power athletes have made the empiric observation that they train and compete better on proportionally higher protein intakes (e.g., 1.5 to 2.5 grams per kg)."

But then in the Performance book they spell out multiple times that the range for protein should be .6 to 1 x lean body mass. Wouldn't the ranges for athletes be higher than the general public that the Living book is geared towards?

Then in Dr. Phinney's podcast with Jimmy Moore he continues to reference 1.5-2grams/kg from the Living book. He also refers to a protein chart that is in the NANY book which has ranges by height that don't seem to correspond (Jimmy has copied this is the notes for the podcast in case anyone is interested).

Any thoughts?

I don't have either book, but it looks like the Performance book uses "pounds" as it's weight measure and the Living book uses "kilograms" and perhaps the difference between entire weight and LBM changes the range indices, as well?

I don't have either book, but it looks like the Performance book uses "pounds" as it's weight measure and the Living book uses "kilograms" and perhaps the difference between entire weight and LBM changes the range indices, as well?

Another difference is the use of lean body mass vs. total weight. Lean body mass seems on the surface to be more accurate since LBM will require more protein than fat so it should be accounted for in the calculation. But I'm not sure if that's a correct assumption to make.

For me, the Performance range is 72-120 and the Living range is 102-136. That's 30 grams of protein difference on the lower end!

"After much toing and froing and research had been done it was eventually found that a protein intake of about 1.5 g/kg of lean body mass (LBM; note that researchers actually used Ideal Body Weight but this is a rough proxy for LBM) was necessary to spare LBM losses in a non-training obese individual consuming low calories."

I wonder if the "reference weight" that is referred to in the Living book is "ideal body weight" and is actually a rough measure of LBM? That may be where the confusion is coming from.

"After much toing and froing and research had been done it was eventually found that a protein intake of about 1.5 g/kg of lean body mass (LBM; note that researchers actually used Ideal Body Weight but this is a rough proxy for LBM) was necessary to spare LBM losses in a non-training obese individual consuming low calories."

I wonder if the "reference weight" that is referred to in the Living book is "ideal body weight" and is actually a rough measure of LBM? That may be where the confusion is coming from.

I bet you are right. I did read somewhere on another site where they referred to Reference Weight as "Ideal Weight". Although, the calculations using ideal weight LBM and entire ideal weight are quite different in protein amount for me personal, varying by 30 g. Regardless, I know I have to go very low on protein and carbs to lose, then will play with both numbers when I'm maintaining. Not concerned with total calories or fat grams at this point, as long as I'm satisfied and not hungry.

Hi Becky,
I wish there was one right answer--it really varies from person to person! Some people can lose with a higher level of protein, while some people (like me) have to keep tight control on their protein in order to lose.

I know that you've been losing pretty well so far, what protein level has been working for you? Is there a reason you want to make a change? If you do want to try a higher level you can always give it a few weeks and then judge whether or not it's working for you over time.

Ok if I understand this my goal weight is 61 kg so that times 1.5 is 91 grams protein. I still think that's a lot

The discussion that Ella and I are having is about how to interpret the recommendations. It may be that the "reference weight" that is referred to by Dr. Phinney means something different than we think it does. If that's true then the recommendation may be lower than goal weight in 1.5Xgoal weight in kg. It may actually be closer to 1.5gXlean body mass in kg. This makes a big difference. I'm not 100% sure that this is true--just thinking out loud.

I think you should go with your gut and what's working for you so far.

RBW is the midpoint of the healthy weight range in the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Within the healthy range RBW can be adjusted upward for more highly muscled and downward for less muscled individuAL.

Is anyone else a bit confused about the difference in protein recommendations between the books and Dr. Phinney's podcast?

In the Living book they recommend 1.5-2g protein per kg of reference body weight. Strangely enough reference weight isn't the same thing as goal weight and I can't find a definition or chart of it in the book. And they also say that "No one has ever shown that more that 1.5gram/kg improves human protein synthesis...That said, however, generations of power athletes have made the empiric observation that they train and compete better on proportionally higher protein intakes (e.g., 1.5 to 2.5 grams per kg)."

But then in the Performance book they spell out multiple times that the range for protein should be .6 to 1 x lean body mass. Wouldn't the ranges for athletes be higher than the general public that the Living book is geared towards?

Then in Dr. Phinney's podcast with Jimmy Moore he continues to reference 1.5-2grams/kg from the Living book. He also refers to a protein chart that is in the NANY book which has ranges by height that don't seem to correspond (Jimmy has copied this is the notes for the podcast in case anyone is interested).

Any thoughts?

my thought is that since phinney and volleck don't seem to have a place where they interact with 'followers' perhaps the question can be directed to jimmy moore bc he seems to be very vigilant about answering questions and he would be able to make contact with p&v if he were unsure of the answer.
I would pose the question but I don't have the books yet and don't feel well versed yet. soon.

my thought is that since phinney and volleck don't seem to have a place where they interact with 'followers' perhaps the question can be directed to jimmy moore bc he seems to be very vigilant about answering questions and he would be able to make contact with p&v if he were unsure of the answer.
I would pose the question but I don't have the books yet and don't feel well versed yet. soon.

This point was quite confusing for me as well. It is one of those things that are likely quite individual but it would be nice to have some clarification from the experts and asking J. Moore is a great idea. He somehow came to his range of 60g to 90g and he has the ears of the experts.....

__________________Cathy
Original start - Feb. 2000 180/125

"The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body." Dr. P. Attia

my thought is that since phinney and volleck don't seem to have a place where they interact with 'followers' perhaps the question can be directed to jimmy moore bc he seems to be very vigilant about answering questions and he would be able to make contact with p&v if he were unsure of the answer.
I would pose the question but I don't have the books yet and don't feel well versed yet. :( soon.

Another venue would be Peter Attia's blog. He does not advertising, so I can link directly to the site.

He is an MD with close connections to both Phinney/Volek and Gary Taubes. He and Taubes are cofounders of NuSI.

He also responds to a large percentage of the questions posed in the comments sections of his blog posts. Sometimes takes him a couple of days, though.

Also, although he sometimes speculates, he is evidence-focused. So often he will say that the information just does not exist.